I have seen senior management in IB and analyst/associates moving to PE, but not a lot of transition in between. is there a reason a VP wouldn't/couldnt move to PE? or do people only like it when they are analysts so they can train them?
| +133 | Future of PE | 29 | 3h |
| +26 | Hardest time I have ever seen to be a GP | 3 | 5d |
| +20 | How to Get on Career Track / Stay Post ASO years | 6 | 4d |
| +18 | Burn Out in PE - What Comes Next? | 3 | 1h |
| +14 | KKR comp for Principal | 20 | 2d |
| +12 | What are you actually using AI for in PE? | 0 | 2h |
| +12 | MBA and Private Equity | 6 | 15h |
| +11 | Buyside in London with nice WLB and pay | 2 | 4h |
| +10 | Best industry/job for entrepreneurship? | 2 | 55m |
| +10 | Undergrad summer PE analyst positions | 3 | 1d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
From the PE firm's perspective, a VP is going to be more expensive but bring minimal additional value versus an analyst. Potentially negative value if they have a bit of ego and aren't willing to get stuck in on more mundane tasks.
Unless you're a VP with a strong network that can originate and fill pipelines, it's doesn't make sense. Associates already have or are on the way to developing the "investor" mindset, likely have a few deployments under their belt and can run with it better than a career banker at the VP level. Just my 2 cents.
Not unheard of, but rarer. As you progress in either banking/PE the job functions, while similar, start to diverge. There is something to be said for having an investor's mindset as well as learning how PE firms operate, do deals, manage portcos, etc. At the PE VP level and above the skillset is more of a balance between sourcing, managing a deal process, working with the portcos, etc. While someone from banking could theoretically step into that role and generally know how to do it having seen the process from the other side, a PE firm would be better off by either hiring someone laterally or promoting a senior associate. Someone who has 2 years of PE experience would just know how to do things faster than someone in banking.
The reason PE firms generally hire analysts after a couple of years is because they are well trained at all the gruntwork required so excel/ppt and then they can be molded early into the firms's ways of thinking about deals, doing deals, etc. Banking has its own deal processes which obviously revolve more around pitching and selling.
In general, the better the bank you come from and the more exposure you have to M&A and deal processes, the better chance you'll have at switching. Also, if you happen to be in a very specialized group, that could help you as well if you're going into a niche PE firm. That's part of the reason why it generally makes sense to leave banking for PE for a few years as its much easier to go back to banking versus transition later on.
Est ipsum harum cum. Consequatur qui sed et doloremque. Quos neque aut aut cumque sint. Illum enim tempore tenetur voluptas maxime aut. Hic minus voluptas impedit ullam libero illum quidem. Eos ut dolorem necessitatibus et cum est.
Quas non est quia corrupti ut. Eius provident quis perspiciatis placeat corrupti.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...